Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreA landlord sought eviction of a tenant from a small Karol Bagh shop under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging the tenant had sublet/parted with possession of part of the premises without the landlord's consent. The shop had, since 1964, housed a government-licensed fair-price (ration) shop whose formal licence was held by a second person (not the tenant himself), while the tenant ran a separate provision store in the remaining portion; the two later entered into a formal partnership in 1977. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Rent Control Tribunal and the Delhi High Court both reversed that decision in the tenant's favour, prompting the landlord's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the evidence clearly showed the tenant had allowed another person (the ration-shop licensee) to occupy and run a business from part of the premises since 1964, decades before any partnership was formalised in 1977, and that this had happened without the landlord's written consent at any stage: squarely triggering Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 14(4) of the Act. The Court clarified that once parting with possession without consent is established, it is unnecessary to separately examine whether the later partnership itself was genuine or a sham. It held the lower appellate courts and High Court erred in focusing only on the partnership deed instead of the earlier, undisputed parting of possession. The appeal was allowed, the eviction decree restored, and the tenants directed to vacate within two months.
A tenant who lets someone else occupy and run a business from part of the rented premises without the landlord's written consent can be evicted for "parting with possession", and this is true even if, years later, the parties dress up the arrangement as a formal partnership.
